RESUMO
Exploration of surgical precision in robotic procedures is extensive, yet lacks a unified framework for comparability. This study examines tissue handling precision by comparing the per-minute blood loss rate between robotic and open partial nephrectomy. A literature search from August 2022 to June 2024 identified 43 relevant studies providing data on estimated blood loss and procedure duration. The expected values and standard errors of these variables were used to compute the per-minute blood loss rate (Q). Meta-analytical methods estimated pooled and subgroup-level mean differences, favoring robotic surgery (MDQ = - 1.043 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.338; - 0.747]). Subgroup analyses by publication year, patient matching, referral center count, and ROBINS-I status consistently supported this advantage. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the above benefit in studies with increased accuracy in reported results (MDQ = - 0.957 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.269; - 0.646]), low risk of bias involving matched comparisons (MDQ = - 0.563 ml/min, CI95% = [- 0.716; - 0.410]), large sample sizes and increased statistical power (MDQ = - 0.780 ml/min, CI95% = [- 1.134; - 0.425]), and multicenter analyses with patient matching (MDQ = - 0.481 ml/min, CI95% = [- 0.698; - 0.263]). The subsequent analysis of correlation between the original variables suggested a slight reduction in the robotic advantage when the latter were proportionally related. Multilevel meta-regression at both temporal and qualitative scales consistently indicated a comparative benefit of the robotic approach. Potentially, lower per-minute blood loss compared to open surgery suggests that robotic partial nephrectomy demonstrates enhanced precision in tissue handling.
Assuntos
Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica , Nefrectomia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/métodos , Nefrectomia/métodos , Humanos , Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica/estatística & dados numéricos , Duração da CirurgiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIM: Trifecta represents a composite outcome reflecting the quality level of treatment in nephron sparing surgery. However, there is substantial heterogeneity concerning the criteria required for its fulfilment. The present study aimed to highlight the potential of a unified view for the different definitions of trifecta when comparing robotic and open approaches in partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out for all relevant comparative studies published until April 2022. Trifecta definitions were clustered according to two criteria for postoperative renal function reduction. The first set as an upper limit the 10% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, while the second set as an upper limit 25 min of ischemia. To mathematically investigate the point of intersection between the above two groups, a suitable model of volume conservation equations was formulated. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were investigated for their methodological features and grouped accordingly. The ischemic zone volume surrounding the tumor resection site emerged as the central parameter connecting the two main definitions. Specifically, for patients with solitary renal masses, a given change in the value of one parameter resulted in a fixed change in the value of the other. CONCLUSION: The two main definitions of the "trifecta outcome" extracted from the international literature represent the two sides of the same coin. Thus, trifecta achievement rates could be utilized by future studies as aggregate data to yield a quantitative estimate of the comparative effect between robotic and open approaches in partial nephrectomy procedures.